Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Project Honey Pot Traps Billionth Spam

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the spam-sequestration dept.

Spam 118

EastDakota writes "Project Honey Pot today announced that it had trapped its 1 billionth spammer. To celebrate, the team behind the largest community sourced project tracking online fraud and abuse released a full rundown of statistics on the last five years of spam. Findings include: spam drops 21% on Christmas Day and 32% of New Year's Day; the most spam is sent on Mondays, the least on Saturdays; spammers found at least 956 different ways to spell VIAGRA (e.g., VIAGRA, V1AGRA, V1@GR@, V!AGRA, VIA6RA, etc.) in mail received by the Project; and much more."

cancel ×

118 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Project Glory Hole Traps CmdrTaco (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446794)

Project Glory Hole has announced that it has trapped CmdrTaco. To celebrate, the team behind this has posted pictures of CmdrTaco's micropenis across the internet.

Spelling (2, Interesting)

Foxxxy (217437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30446802)

I have seen 945 of the spellings in my inbox just last week.... damn spammers

And now, a Joke (FROSTY PISS!) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446804)

Why did the dead baby cross the road? Cuz it was stapled to the chicken!

Did you hear they're improving the transportation in Harlem? Yeah, they're planting the trees closer together!

What do you call a gay Jew? A He-blew!

How was copper wiring invented? Two Jews fighting over a penny!

How could you make a nigger commit suicide? Toss a bucket of KFC into traffic.

Re:And now, a Joke (FROSTY PISS!) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447352)

Sorry, but only the 2nd joke was moderately funny; the rest are just retarded.

Re:And now, a Joke (FROSTY PISS!) (0, Offtopic)

Kleen13 (1006327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448934)

ID10T

Thanks for the info on misspelling Viagra (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446816)

I really thought \/!@gra looked promising. Also, most spam is in your inbox when you get to work and most spammers don't send on the weekends.

Re:Thanks for the info on misspelling Viagra (3, Funny)

Publikwerks (885730) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447506)

Jesus, even spamers have better hours than me

Re:Thanks for the info on misspelling Viagra (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448408)

Is there even demand for the stuff? I spend most of my time trying to get it down, not up. Seems like an artificial way of getting it up would just create more problems than it solves...

Spam = spy chatter? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446848)

Is spam even really spam anymore?

Every now and then I take a look at my gmail spam folder, and none of the messages contain links or even coherent sentences.

Nothing being sold, nothing being said... What's the point?

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447234)

*slow golf clap*

Gmail strips most of the links.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447334)

Why would it strip out a link but allow the rest through unchanged? Why does it strip out the links in some spam messages, but not others?

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447882)

Gmail strips most of the links.

I have to ask (afraid to hear the depressing answer) even if there are links to something for sale, what's the point? Are there honestly people out there who get an e-mail that is gibberish, a link, and then more gibberish, they click on the link, see "Hey, it's selling viagra! I need viagra!" and enter their credit card, and there are enough of these people that you can make more money preying on them than you can working at McDonalds?

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (2, Informative)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448258)

in short... yes

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449616)

in short... yes

This is not true. All SPAM needs to get published is somebody to spend a few bucks to get their message out there. That's it. SPAM rates are not goverened by success of the ad. SPAM is, however, dirt cheap (I think I read something like $100 for 50,000 messages...) and a number of people use that stupid "if I only get 1% of those...." logic.

Advertising in general works like that. We still have pop-up ads because some dumb-shits out there are ordering them.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (2, Interesting)

Frigga's Ring (1044024) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448356)

Who needs to enter anything? You can install plenty of malware simply by having the user click on your link. Plus, it depends on who the spam comes from. Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read, "Check out this link: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/1652236/Project-Honey-Pot-Traps-Billionth-Spam [totalyavirus.com] "? (Disregarding, of course, the Slashdot URL display feature)

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (3, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449116)

Wow cool link. Thanks for that.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449232)

Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read,

Depends on the timing of the email.

I could have been holding an email conversation with someone regarding any number of topics, maybe I was researching treadmills, wondering what was a good deal, where to buy, consumer reviews...

And then in the middle of the conversation comes a "Hey check out this one". Granted, that requires good timing, but it happens.

And damned if I haven't accidentally clicked on a link in google by bumping my mouse as I reached for the phone and caused it to go to some squatter site or a hijacked site.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449576)

Would you really check the URL if you received an e-mail that looked like it was from a close friend that simply read, "Check out this link: http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/15/1652236/Project-Honey-Pot-Traps-Billionth-Spam [slashdot.org] [totalyavirus.com]"?

Yes, but I admit that is largely due to being rick-rolled one too many times.

(that and they're usually headed by "Hey Bob..." when my name is not bob.)

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (5, Funny)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447412)

My favorite theory is that spammers are making money by selling spamming services to suckers, not by actually selling a product in the spam.

I guess there is also some chance that there is some botnet out there set to verify that mail reaches addresses, and it is just running out of control.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447466)

You mean, skynet actually is created by spammers?

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447842)

Well, it's more like a runaway bulldozer than a sentient computer network bent on the destruction of humanity, but sure, why not.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448098)

All life started from chaotic collisions of molecules...

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449270)

All life started from chaotic collisions of molecules...

But this had the guiding hand of some sort of developer, a creator of those conditions you might say.

Which is to say, we are God's rhinovirus.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (2, Informative)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447560)

I guess there is also some chance that there is some botnet out there set to verify that mail reaches addresses, and it is just running out of control.

This. It's not just about finding whether the email address is correct, though, it's also testing the junkmail filters -- seeing what words will get a domain on a blacklist and which will still get delivered or bounced at the directory level. I learned this after researching why I got a promising email titled "TEENAGE GIRL HAS SEX WITH BAT!" only to open it up and find a disappointing message like "Gillette rosemary is talking sweet sound to hair bounces great. Sounded of?"

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

randallman (605329) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447478)

They are training your spam filters.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448786)

I get links. Perhaps Google is filtering yours out?

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (1)

stevey (64018) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448952)

Attempting to subvert bayasian filters such that future real spam can slip through more easily.

Re:Spam = spy chatter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30449340)

I think it is noise to confuse the Bayesian filters

ok (4, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30446852)

1 billionth spammer

So approximately one out of every 7 people on earth is a spammer?

Re:ok (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447034)

And thats only the ones they've caught.

In fact, almost everyone on the net is a spammer. It's kind of a secret club, where you have to pass a secret trial, to gain your secret right of entry. It's so secret, I shouldn't even be divulging this secret information. If the secret spammers found out, I could get

Re:ok (3, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447428)

Nice of them to hit the Submit button for you though, though it does seem to defeat the purpose of killing you for trying to send it.

Re:ok (4, Informative)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447500)

The Spam Club is sending a message. That posting was the /. equivalent of a horse's head in your bed.

Re:ok (1)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448024)

The Spam Club is sending a message. That posting was the /. equivalent of a horse's head in your bed.

I fail to see how thats anything like necro-beastiality.

Re:ok (2, Funny)

An ominous Cow art (320322) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449712)

I used to be into sado-necro-bestiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse.

You forgot (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450620)

The first rule of Spam Club, is never talk about Spam Club.

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447584)

omg! thanks for pointing this out! I've seen that joke made a thousand times, but noone ever made that comment! you sire are a god amongst men!

Re:ok (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447740)

Actually, when they shot him, his head fell onto his mouse, triggering a click, which by chance hit the submit button.

Re:ok (1)

DavidTC (10147) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447926)

Which would work if you could submit things that way, but sadly there's a Preview required.

Re:ok (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448506)

Well, in the shock of hearing them coming through the door, he already accidentally had pressed preview.

Re:ok (1)

Jamil Karim (931849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448902)

His head bounced, thereby clicking twice. Miraculously on the preview button, and then the submit button.

Re:ok (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449416)

Slashdot doesn't make me preview comments prior to submiting, perhaps that's because I use the old commenting system.

Re:ok (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449756)

What? I can submit with previewing first.

Re:ok (1)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447446)

And thats only the ones they've caught.

In fact, almost everyone on the net is a spammer. It's kind of a secret club, where you have to pass a secret trial, to gain your secret right of entry. It's so secret, I shouldn't even be divulging this secret information. If the secret spammers found out, I could get

NO CARRIER?

Re:ok (2, Funny)

Narpak (961733) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447688)

In fact, almost everyone on the net is a spammer. It's kind of a secret club, where you have to pass a secret trial, to gain your secret right of entry. It's so secret, I shouldn't even be divulging this secret information.

Order your copy of the Secret Guide to Membership NOW. Only 19.99$, for 29.99$ you get the extra DvD and you own genuine signet ring!

Re:ok (1)

revlayle (964221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448124)

OH NO - Candlejack got h

Re:ok (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450428)

The first rule of spam club is that you don't talk about spam club.

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447498)

According to project honey pot. They are a little over eager to classify people as spammers. I run my on mail server, so my IP is on there list. None of the emails that they found to be violating were even somewhat spam like. They were things like personal email to friends, ironing out the details on contracting work and other such personal things. I keep adding my IP to the whitelist but since I still run a mail server it keeps getting blacklisted.

Re:ok (3, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447620)

Did you check if your mail server is actually an open relay?

Re:ok (3, Informative)

Dan Ost (415913) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447886)

If my understanding is correct, project honey pot puts bogus emails in webpages and any mail sent to those email addresses are, pretty much by definition, spam.

If that's true, then that would indicate that your machine is sending email to honey pot addresses.

Re:ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30448390)

No, that is the current number of compromised systems.

one billion spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446866)

Isn't that like McDonald's 99 billion served, or are one-sixth of us spamming?

Re:one billion spammers (1)

lordtoran (1063300) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448000)

More like, one-sixth of the world population are part of a botnet, relaying junk mail for the true spammers.

People fall for spam? (2, Insightful)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30446904)

It's been a long lonnnng time since I've actually seen a spam message that I didn't immediately recognize as spam... Maybe some people are completely ignorant of the fact that someone on the internet is out to take your money (*gasp!*), but honestly, how can the amount of effort expended in creating spam compare to the amount of money they receive from suckers who click on "V1AGRA!11!!" links?

I'm just sayin'...

Re:People fall for spam? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447018)

because if you send a million spam mails you only need a handful of people to actually buy anything, I'm talking a few dozen, to cover your costs.

Re:People fall for spam? (2, Informative)

Again (1351325) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447480)

because if you send a million spam mails you only need a handful of people to actually buy anything, I'm talking a few dozen, to cover your costs.

And if the spam includes a link to a website which is ad-based the user doesn't even need to hand over his credit card number to make the spam worthwhile.

Re:People fall for spam? (2, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447032)

You should reason the opposite way.

Knowing that spam gives benefit. Who are the people who fall on all those traps and how could we help them not to?

In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (4, Informative)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447110)

You can't fix stupid.

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447260)

Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (5, Funny)

dissy (172727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447390)

Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.

Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.

And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (5, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447632)

Yes you can. Smith&Wesson released their first debugging tool for it over a century ago. The application remains illegal for some odd reason I don't really understand.

Ah yes, the original 'point and click' interface for remotely managing stupid.

And it is illegal now you say? My apologies but from the place I hide to avoid stupid, we don't get many updates on all these new fangled laws.

It probably violates Amazon's one-click patent.

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30448202)

Prior Art!

Mod parent funny (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450464)

I posted in this thread to undo a moderation misclick. That has wiped my 'Funny' moderation of my parent's post. Sorry. Someone please mod parent Funny :)

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (5, Funny)

cybiko123 (1223650) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447884)

It's not for debugging, it's for troubleshooting.

Mod parent funny :) (1)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450444)

Sorry for moderating you overrated. I meant to click 'Funny'. Posting to undo.

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448198)

Hmm. I'm not sure that destroying something really qualifies as fixing it...

Aw whatever, it's all semitic or antisemantics or something. Yee haw!! *pow pow*

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (1)

Thelasko (1196535) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448062)

You can't fix stupid.

-Ron White [youtube.com]

Re:In the terribly elegant words of... someone? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450638)

You can't fix stupid.

Ignorance != stupidity.

Re:People fall for spam? (2, Insightful)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447318)

how can the amount of effort expended in creating spam compare to the amount of money they receive from suckers who click on "V1AGRA!11!!" links?

You're saying you don't know anybody who clicks on ads because they read "Click Here" ?

Re:People fall for spam? (1)

rehtonAesoohC (954490) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447380)

Well I mean I can understand how people can fall for links in ads on a website somewhere, but emailed spam, really?

Re:People fall for spam? (2, Insightful)

zullnero (833754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448552)

You'd be surprised. There are still people out there dipping their first toe in the Internet pool because they felt it was time that they learn this "email" thing for various reasons. Those are precisely the people that spammers are targeting.

That said, bulk email is very 1999, and the spammers know it. The real goal these days is to try to get as many systems out there connected to botnets as possible and try to "force feed" as many people with spam as they possibly can. The key is to fashion emails to look as concise as possible, and get your parents' and friends' computers to send that email to you instead of a complete stranger. Suddenly, the basic spam defense tactics that we all know and live by go out the window. Everyone's mom or dad has a mailing list for forwards, and that is a prime target. If you got an email from your dad saying "I just made my own website!" and a link, you can bet there'd be at least a few kids who'd try to be good kids and click that link. And they're always the ones who don't patch their systems up, too.

Billionth spammer? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30446982)

Spammer is supposed to be the person who spams our mail boxes. If there were a billion of those then approximately 1 in 7 people in the world would be a spammer. That number is unthinkable, even for Florida's and Brazil's standard..

Maybe (2, Insightful)

machinelou (1119861) | more than 4 years ago | (#30446990)

Maybe now with a billion samples, we can start training people how to recognize it.

Re:Maybe (1)

sajuuk (1371145) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447118)

That would imply that the average human has a brain capable of logical deduction. Sadly, that is not the case.

Re:Maybe (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447548)

Actually, you don't need logical deduction to correctly sort most emails. Just say "spam" every time, and most of the time you'll be right.

Re:Maybe (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450012)

All it takes is for one human brain capable of logical deduction to write the code for the software that will sort out the SPAM for everyone else.

Re:Maybe (1)

sabt-pestnu (967671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447290)

The article calls out that primarily, bots are used to actually distribute the spam.

Bots are also used for any number of malicious purposes, spam being perhaps the most benign (because it CAN be recognized and discarded).

People have called in this thread for training victims to make spam not pay. This might work for spam bots, but would do nothing for any other type of bot. How about training people to ensure their machine is swept clean of malware on a regular basis, and to keep adequate defenses (AV software, browser guards, whatever)?

Time to celebrate with a song (1)

kbob88 (951258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447090)

Let's celebrate with a song we all know: "Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam..."

Now repeat 1 billion times...

(Sad to think that way more spam has been sent than the number of times that Monty Python sketch has been played; should be the other way around)

Is anybody actually trapped by it? (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447268)

Their web site claims, "We also work with law enforcement authorities to track down and prosecute spammers." Have they actually prosecuted any spammers using this?

If it helps create better spam filters, yay. But I'd really like to know if any spammers are being punished as well.

The summary is wrong (1, Informative)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447472)

The article says clearly:

On Wednesday, December 9, 2009 at 06:20 (GMT) Project Honey Pot received its billionth email spam message

In fact, the title of the article is:

Our 1 Billionth Spam Message

Re:The summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447550)

The summaries are routinely wrong.

Re:The summary is wrong (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447728)

Only routinely? You must be new here.

Re:The summary is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30448286)

Only routinely?

This doesn't make sense. This is like saying "only always?".

Re:The summary is wrong (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448604)

Thanks for reading TFA and ruining all our fun.

Legalize OTC Viagra ? (2, Interesting)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447534)

Putting aside for a moment the potential medical issues, I wonder how much money would be saved in the US economy if we just legalized the selling of Viagra over the counter?

Re:Legalize OTC Viagra ? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447828)

The cost of treating doughy impotent old men for heart attacks caused by Viagra Im sure outweighs this. Its not exactly safe:

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5687205_viagra-risk-factors.html [ehow.com]

If anything, its legal as a script because of the intense demand. I wonder if something thats targeted at old men that also drops heart pressure and causes heart attacks would be tolerated as even sellable if it wasnt for the overwhelming demand to get Mr Pokey up one last time. Pot is safer.

Re:Legalize OTC Viagra ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30448530)

Why are we treating doughy old men then? 6 billion people and rising, let's let some of them die "with a bang".

Should have donated my email address (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447554)

I must get a billion spam in one year. :(

Damn spammers

Cost-benefit (4, Funny)

delirium of disorder (701392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447568)

If you total up all the productivity lost to fighting spam and time wasted getting spam, it's probably cheaper to just put the spammers out of business by giving every male on earth free Viagra.

Re:Cost-benefit (2, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448420)

I hope they start spamming "Meet hot and horny girls!" more then.

Re:Cost-benefit (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30448634)

But how would you contact them? via e-mail? Then how would they know it was legit? Damn spammers!

956 ways? (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30447642)

viagra can be misspelled many ways
in an email message.
all of them not as direct as
going and using this way of
routing the word around filters,
and not even misspelling it

Re:956 ways? (4, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449264)

Pare, considering you've been in the "editing" stage since February 2007, perhaps it's time to update your sig to "I've grown tired of making a Low Budget HDV Filipino Horror Movie in NYC" ?

It's not easy being a Viagra spammer... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30447822)

They face a lot of STIFF competition!

Not Something to Celebrate (1)

BlindSpot (512363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448314)

To celebrate,

Personally I think 1 billion spam isn't something to celebrate. "Mourn" is more like it...

Re:Not Something to Celebrate (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449390)

If it helps, this really doesn't sound like much of a celebration:

To celebrate, the team behind the largest community sourced project tracking online fraud and abuse released a full rundown of statistics on the last five years of spam.

Hopefully it won't get too wild.

Where's the list (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448514)

I've only been able to come up with 796 versions of viagra. I'm sure there must be many more. Can I download the list? It would help in my work^h^h^hhobby...

no ipV6 (3, Interesting)

mabu (178417) | more than 4 years ago | (#30448868)

The most effective way of stopping spam thus far is using IP blacklisting. It should be noted if the net moves to ipV6, that will be the end of blacklist effectiveness for some time.

Re:no ipV6 (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449322)

Yup, just set your filter to block the range 0.0.0.0 to 255.255.255.255.

Problem solved.

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment. This is because the submission process is so borked, it takes 45 seconds to write a new entry to our database.

Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. Nope, it's just my neurons fire faster than once per minute.
 

Re:no ipV6 (2, Informative)

Straterra (1045994) | more than 4 years ago | (#30449604)

Not really. Every end user is supposed to get a /64. You could just block their /64 and accomplish pretty much the same thing.

I wonder (4, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 4 years ago | (#30450544)

I wonder how many of those Viagra spelling variations are valid Perl code...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?